RESILIENCE AND STABILITY OF ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS, C. S. Holling (1973)

(pdf) https://www.zoology.ubc.ca/bdg/pdfs_bdg/2013/Holling%201973.pdf

Obituary overviews:

• https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2019-08-23-pioneering-the-science-of-surprise-.html
• https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/19/Buzz-Holling-Resilient-Universe/

Ecological resilience

Ecological resilience – Wikipedia

Ecological resilience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  (Redirected from Resilience (ecology))Jump to navigationJump to searchFor other uses, see Resilience (disambiguation).Lake and Mulga ecosystems with alternative stable states^[1]

In ecology, resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a perturbation or disturbance by resisting damage and recovering quickly. Such perturbations and disturbances can include stochastic events such as fires, flooding, windstorms, insect population explosions, and human activities such as deforestation, fracking of the ground for oil extraction, pesticide sprayed in soil, and the introduction of exotic plant or animal species. Disturbances of sufficient magnitude or duration can profoundly affect an ecosystem and may force an ecosystem to reach a threshold beyond which a different regime of processes and structures predominates.^[2]When such thresholds are associated with a critical or bifurcation point, these regime shifts may also be referred to as critical transitions.^[3]

Human activities that adversely affect ecological resilience such as reduction of biodiversity, exploitation of natural resources, pollution, land use, and anthropogenic climate change are increasingly causing regime shifts in ecosystems, often to less desirable and degraded conditions.^[2][4] Interdisciplinary discourse on resilience now includes consideration of the interactions of humans and ecosystems via socio-ecological systems, and the need for shift from the maximum sustainable yieldparadigm to environmental resource management which aims to build ecological resilience through “resilience analysis, adaptive resource management, and adaptive governance”.^[5]

Contents

• 1Definitions
• 2Theory
• 3Human impacts
  • 3.1Agriculture
  • 3.2Deforestation
  • 3.3Climate change
  • 3.4Overfishing
  • 3.5Dumping of waste into the sea
    • 3.5.1Poisoning marine life
    • 3.5.2Eutrophication and algal blooms
• 4Sustainable development
  • 4.1Academic perspectives
  • 4.2The flaw of the free market
  • 4.3Moving beyond sustainable development
• 5In environmental policy
• 6Environmental management in legislation
• 7See also
• 8References
• 9Further reading
• 10External links

Definitions[edit]

The concept of resilience in ecological systems was first introduced by the Canadian ecologist C.S. Holling ^[6] in order to describe the persistence of natural systems in the face of changes in ecosystem variables due to natural or anthropogenic causes. Resilience has been defined in two ways in ecological literature:

1. as the time required for an ecosystem to return to an equilibrium or steady-state following a perturbation (which is also defined as stability by some authors). This definition of resilience is used in other fields such as physics and engineering, and hence has been termed ‘engineering resilience’ by Holling.^[6][7]
2. as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks”.^[5]

The second definition has been termed ‘ecological resilience’, and it presumes the existence of multiple stable states or regimes.^[7]

Some shallow temperate lakes can exist within either clear water regime, which provides many ecosystem services, or a turbid water regime, which provides reduced ecosystem services and can produce toxic algae blooms. The regime or state is dependent upon lake phosphorus cycles, and either regime can be resilient dependent upon the lake’s ecology and management.^[1][2]

Mulga woodlands of Australia can exist in a grass-rich regime that supports sheep herding, or a shrub-dominated regime of no value for sheep grazing. Regime shifts are driven by the interaction of fire, herbivory, and variable rainfall. Either state can be resilient dependent upon management.^[1][2]

Theory[edit]

Ecologists Brian Walker, C S Holling and others describe four critical aspects of resilience: latitude, resistance, precariousness, and panarchy.

The first three can apply both to a whole system or the sub-systems that make it up.

1. Latitude: the maximum amount a system can be changed before losing its ability to recover (before crossing a threshold which, if breached, makes recovery difficult or impossible).
2. Resistance: the ease or difficulty of changing the system; how “resistant” it is to being changed.
3. Precariousness: how close the current state of the system is to a limit or “threshold.”.^[5]
4. Panarchy: the degree to which a certain hierarchical level of an ecosystem is influenced by other levels. For example, organisms living in communities that are in isolation from one another may be organized differently from the same type of organism living in a large continuous population, thus the community-level structure is influenced by population-level interactions.

Closely linked to resilience is adaptive capacity, which is the property of an ecosystem that describes change in stability landscapes and resilience.^[7] Adaptive capacity in socio-ecological systems refers to the ability of humans to deal with change in their environment by observation, learning and altering their interactions.^[2]

Continues in source: Ecological resilience – Wikipedia

Just to give him his due! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine

Nobel prize lecture: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/prigogine-lecture.pdf

source:

(PDF) A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a Latin-American multi-national | Angela Espinosa, Andrea C Martinez, and Ana Guzmán – Academia.edu

Innovative Applications of O.R.A methodology for supporting strategy implementation basedon the VSM: A case study in a Latin-American multi-nationalAngela Espinosaa,b,⇑, Ezequiel Reficcob,1, Andrea Martínezb,1, David Guzmánb,1aHull Business School, Hull University, Cottingham Rd., Hull HU6 7RX, United KingdombLos Andes School of Management, Calle 21 # 1-20, Bogota, Colombiaa r t i c l e i n f o Article history:Received 16 July 2013Accepted 17 June 2014Available online 26 June 2014Keywords:(I) OR in developing countries(S) Complexity theoryProblem structuring (P)Viability theoryOrganizational redesigna b s t r a c tSoft OR tools have increasingly been used to support the strategic development of companies atoperational and managerial levels. However, we still lack OR applications that can be useful in dealingwiththe‘‘implementationgap’’,understoodasthescarcityofresourcesavailabletoorganizationsseekingto align their existing processes and structures with a new strategy. In this paper we contribute tofilling that gap, describing an action research case study where we supported strategy implementationin a Latin American multinational corporation through a soft OR methodology. We enhanced the‘Methodology to support organizational self-transformation’, inspired by the Viable System Model, withsubstantive improvements in data collection and analyses. Those adjustments became necessary tofacilitate second order learning and agreements on required structural changes among a large numberof participants. This case study contributes to the soft OR and strategy literature with insights aboutthe promise and constraints of this soft OR methodology to collectively structure complex decisions thatsupport organizational redesign and strategy implementation.

full article in source:

(PDF) A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a Latin-American multi-national | Angela Espinosa, Andrea C Martinez, and Ana Guzmán – Academia.edu

source1:

The big bike helmet debate: ‘You don’t make it safe by forcing cyclists to dress for urban warfare’ | Cycling | The Guardian

This is really a great case study for anyone looking for a systems thinking topic for students – or serious research. In either case, have them do a simple cause-and-effect diagram first using maximum creativity and thinking, to see if anything they intuit maps to the reality.

Prejudice, opinions, beliefs, passion, science, disputed science, contextual sensitivity, and deep nebulousity. What is a policy-maker to do?

Some things that seem fairly clear:

• IF you have a bad accident, a properly-fitted cycle helmet could save your life or mitigate damage (though while it might help with head injuries – some brain surgeons say they’re too flimsy to be *much* use – they do also increase the risk of neck injury – and of course it might look like it saved your life, but the helmet took a blow that would have been a near-miss to your head)
• Most people do not wear them properly fitted.
• If you are planning on going fast or dangerously, you should wear one.
• They are fairly unlikely to subconscioulsy make you cycle more dangerously.
• They are very likely to make cars be just a bit more aggressive and drive closer to you.
• Increased wearing of helmets possibly has a small negative affect on overall health outcomes.
• Mandatory helmet rules definitely dissuade cycling, and seem to increase overall accidents.
• It would be a far more powerful intervention for public safety and health to create a positive and safe cycling environment.
• Almost nobody wears hi-viz or helmets in the Netherlands. But of those injured, a really high proportion of them wear helmets.
• More people have cycle accidents when drunk. Very few drunk cyclists wear helmets.
• The most effective interventions are in increasing car driver capability and awareness.

What seems very clear is that teenage car drivers and their passengers should definitely wear helmets and neck braces.

Personally, I favour the requirement to make all cars absolutely as safe and protected as possible, as long as all the drivers are situated at street level in a balsa-wood box with a dagger embedded in the steering wheel.

PS I have had two bad cycle accidents in my younger days – once I was doored by a car and did a flying somersault over the top of the car door, and once my bottom bracket snapped and left me sliding under and into the back of a car in front. Both times I was greatful to be wearing a helmet, which I habitually do.

The big bike helmet debate: ‘You don’t make it safe by forcing cyclists to dress for urban warfare’

The big bike helmet debate: ‘You don’t make it safe by forcing cyclists to dress for urban warfare’ | Cycling | The Guardian

An article: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1249.html from a whole dedicated website: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/0.html

• https://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

NB this was prompted by the current (as of 1 January 2021) UK Prime Minister being accused of something for cycling seven miles from home (two women were cautioned and fined recently for meeting up five miles from each of their homes… were they exercising? Did it matter they brought tea? Were they on a bench chatting? Was it really a picnic? Did they need three police cars to arrest them? etc) – and in this stock phot from 2013, he is helmetless – though I have definitely seen him wearing one in such a manner that it was pointless anyway.

source

Everything I Know | The Buckminster Fuller Institute

EVERYTHING I KNOW

During the last two weeks of January 1975 Buckminster Fuller gave an extraordinary series of lectures concerning his entire life’s work. These thinking out loud lectures span 42 hours and examine in depth all of Fuller’s major inventions and discoveries from the 1927 Dymaxion house, car and bathroom, through the Wichita House, geodesic domes, and tensegrity structures, as well as the contents of Synergetics. Autobiographical in parts, Fuller recounts his own personal history in the context of the history of science and industrialization.

The stories behind his Dymaxion car, geodesic domes, World Game and integration of science and humanism are lucidly communicated with continuous reference to his synergetic geometry. Permeating the entire series is his unique comprehensive design approach to solving the problems of the world. Some of the topics Fuller covered in this wide ranging discourse include: architecture, design, philosophy, education, mathematics, geometry, cartography, economics, history, structure, industry, housing and engineering.

Everything I Know was made available online at archive.org/details/buckminsterfuller.

The printed work below is a transcript of those lectures. Painstakingly typed word for word from audiotapes, these transcripts are minimally edited and maximally Fuller. In that vein you will run into unique Bucky-isms: special phrases, terminology, unusual sentence structures, etc. Because of this, as well as the sheer volume of words, we expect you may find places that need editing, refining and improving. Therefore, we invite you to participate! We hope that by your using it as an active resource you can, through your comments, suggestions and feedback, become a participant in the process of annotating, editing, footnoting, updating and illustrating the information it contains. This way it will become progressively more useful to more and more people. The more it is used the more useful it can become! Send us your edits by simply sending us a copy of the page(s) that you think need changes, marked with your suggestions and edits by mail or fax. We will then make the appropriate adjustments to be integrated and published in the newer versions of the work over time.

We are grateful to make this work available and look forward to its evolution into an evermore useful, refined, and expanded document.

— The Buckminster Fuller Institute

First Edition

Published by the Buckminster Fuller Institute
Contact us for more Information

Copyright © 1997 Estate of R. Buckminster Fuller
All proceeds from the sale of this publication go directly to the Buckminster Fuller Institute to further their work.

content in source:

Everything I Know | The Buckminster Fuller Institute

source:

Systems Change & Deep Equity: Pathways Toward Sustainable Impact, Beyond “Eureka!,” Unawareness & Unwitting Harm – Change Elemental

Systems Change & Deep Equity: Pathways Toward Sustainable Impact, Beyond “Eureka!,” Unawareness & Unwitting Harm

ARTICLE
July 15, 2020SHERYL PETTY, MARK LEACH
Equity, Systems Change

“Systems Change pursued without Deep Equity is, in our experience, dangerous and can cause harm, and in fact leaves some of the critical elements of systems unchanged. And ‘equity’ pursued without ‘Systems Change’ is not comprehensive at the level of effectiveness currently needed.”

Sheryl Petty

Transformative change towards love, dignity, and justice requires deeply embedding equity into all systems change efforts.

And yet, there are many ways a deep equity perspective has not been integrated into the systems change field and as a result, many systems change efforts have caused harm. We have learned in our work that systems change without equity is not systems change. 

This monograph by Sheryl Petty, Movement Tapestries, and Mark Leach, Change Elemental, illuminates essential dimensions of approaches to Systems Change, which are intimately connected with Deep Equity. It also offers ideas about how to bring racial — and other intersecting aspects of equity — more deeply and centrally into your systems change work. The combination of the systems change and deep equity fields is critical work for the next phase of our human evolution, to become the societies we hope for in our deepest hearts.

We hope you will join us on our shared journey toward greater love, healing, and systems transformation.

*If you have trouble downloading the monograph using the download button below, please email cocreate@ChangeElemental.org.

source:

Systems Change & Deep Equity: Pathways Toward Sustainable Impact, Beyond “Eureka!,” Unawareness & Unwitting Harm – Change Elemental

source:

Viable Tribes: Jonathan Huxley – YouTube

Viable Tribes: Jonathan Huxley

4 Jan 2021

Meta Phorum

Metaphorum Webinar Series 2020-2021

Viable Tribes: Jonathan Huxley 5 views•4 Jan 2021 1 0 SHARE SAVE Meta Phorum 7 subscribers SUBSCRIBED Metaphorum Webinar Series 2020-2021

Viable Tribes: Jonathan Huxley – YouTube

source: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art23/

Home | Archives | About | Login | Submissions | Notify | Contact | Search

E&S HOME > VOL. 12, NO. 1 > ART. 23 Copyright © 2007 by the author(s). Published here under license by The Resilience Alliance. Go to the pdf version of this articleThe following is the established format for referencing this article: Brand, F. S., and K. Jax. 2007. Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and Society 12(1): 23. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art23/ SynthesisFocusing the Meaning(s) of Resilience: Resilience as a Descriptive Concept and a Boundary ObjectFridolin Simon Brand 1 and Kurt Jax 21Institute for Landscape Ecology, Technische Universität München, Germany, 2Department of Conservation Biology, UFZ-Environmental Research Centre Leipzig-Ha AbstractIntroductionA Typology for Definitions of ResilienceCategory I: Descriptive conceptCategory II: Hybrid conceptCategory III: Normative conceptResilience as a Descriptive Ecological ConceptResilience as a Boundary ObjectDiscussionResponses to this ArticleAcknowledgmentsLiterature Cited ABSTRACT This article reviews the variety of definitions proposed for “resilience” within sustainability science and suggests a typology according to the specific degree of normativity. There is a tension between the original descriptive concept of resilience first defined in ecological science and a more recent, vague, and malleable notion of resilience used as an approach or boundary object by different scientific disciplines. Even though increased conceptual vagueness can be valuable to foster communication across disciplines and between science and practice, both conceptual clarity and practical relevance of the concept of resilience are critically in danger. The fundamental question is what conceptual structure we want resilience to have. This article argues that a clearly specified, descriptive concept of resilience is critical in providing a counterbalance to the use of resilience as a vague boundary object. A clear descriptive concept provides the basis for operationalization and application of resilience within ecological science. Key words: boundary object; definition; descriptive concept; ecological resilience; resilience; sustainability; typology. INTRODUCTION The concept of resilience is one of the most important research topics in the context of achieving sustainability (Perrings et al. 1995, Kates et al. 2001, Foley et al. 2005). First introduced as a descriptive ecological term (Holling 1973), resilience has been frequently redefined and extended by heuristic, metaphorical, or normative dimensions (e.g., Holling 2001, Ott and Döring 2004, Pickett et al. 2004, Hughes et al. 2005). Meanwhile, the concept is used by various scientific disciplines as an approach to analyze ecological as well as social-ecological systems (Anderies et al. 2006, Folke 2006). As such, it promotes research efforts across disciplines and between science and policy. However, both conceptual clarity and practical relevance are critically in danger. The original descriptive and ecological meaning of resilience is diluted as the term is used ambiguously and in a very wide extension. This is due to the blending of descriptive aspects, i.e., specifications of what is the case, and normative aspects, i.e., prescriptions what ought to be the case or is desirable as such. As a result, difficulties to operationalize and apply the concept of resilience within ecological science prevail. This, in turn, impedes progress and maturity of resilience theory (cf., Pickett et al. 1994:57). The success of the concept in stimulating research across disciplines on the one side and the dilution of the descriptive core on the other raises the fundamental question what conceptual structure we want resilience to have. This article is divided into four parts. The first section offers a typology to structure the numerous definitions of resilience proposed within sustainability science. Using this typology as a background, the second section investigates in more detail a descriptive, ecological concept of resilience viewed from both a formal and an operational perspective. Subsequently, the third section examines the use of resilience as a rather vague boundary object and points to some chances and pitfalls. The fourth section concludes with final thoughts on the recent conceptual development and a fruitful conceptual structure of resilience.

continues in source: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art23/

These are the ones I subscribe to – please add or improve in the comments!

Titles marked with a * indicate those which currently have no contemporary episodes published (as of 2021-01-07) – most of these of course are defunct (but have a back catalogue), but not all will be

(See https://stream.syscoi.com/2020/10/08/who-are-our-fellow-travellers/ for my definition of ‘fellow travellers’)

– My podcasts coming soon (which should sort of be a mix of all of these since these are the water I swim in)

• Transduction: the systems, complexity, and cybernetics podcast __I have come to sing songs to your cat__
• Joy and Work – leading (public)service transformation

**Broadly systems/cybernetics/complexity/sensemaking**

• BDCG — Applying Systems Thinking to Your Hardest Problems*
• Catalyzing Conversations
• Complex System – for iPod/iPhone (The Open University)*
• Complexity (Santa Fe)
• Complexity and Systemic Risk: Hilary Term Seminar Series 2010*
• Complexus Podcast
• General Intellect Unit
• Human Current*
• Managing complexity: a systems approach – for iBooks/ – introduction*
• Nature matters: systems thinking and experts – for iBooks*
• New Books in Systems and Cybernetics
• Syntheic A Priori*
• Systems Thinking – Mike Metcalfe
• Systems thinking and practice – for IBooks*
• The Clock and the Cat*
• The Systemic Insight podcast*
• Understanding systems: making sense of complexity – for iBooks*
• Wicked Problems and Circular Systems

– **Sensemaking (ish) – and ‘game b’ ish**

• Being Human
• Both/And
• Emerge: Making Sense of What’s Next*
• Emergence Magazine Podcast
• Future Thinkers
• sensemaking – inside baseball*
• Team Human
• The Jim Rutt Show
• The Stoa

– **Buddhism (post-traditional etc)**

• Buddhist Geeks
• Deconstructing Yourself
• The Mindful Cranks

– **’System change’ / social change:**

• The Ashoka Systems Change Podcast*
• Beyond the Paradox Podcast*
• Conversations about a Collaborative Society with Lord Victor Adebowale*
• Find The Outside
• In Too Deep (Kumu)*
• Leadermorphosis
• Moment of Change with Melanie Rayment*
• New Thinking for a New World – a Tallberg Foundation Podcast
• Reasons to be Cheerful with Ed Miliband and Geoff Lloyd
• R Talks: Eploring Relational Social Policy
• Systems Change Alliance
• Unleashing Social Change

– **Environment/permaculture**

• From What If to What Next
• Inevitable Change*
• Outrage + Optimism
• The Permaculture Podcast

– **Other fellow travellers (safety differently and Strong Towns)**

• PreAccident Investigation Podcast
• The Strong Towns Podcast

– **Generally intellectual stuff**

• EconTalk
• Freakonomics Radio
• Ideas (CBC Radio)
• In Our Time
• The Seen and the Unseen – hosted by Amit Varma
• SynTalk

– **’Intellectual Dark Web’**

• The Jordan B Peterson Podcast
• The Intellectual Dark Web Podcast
• Making Sense with Sam Harris (yawn)
• Bloggingheads.tv: The Glenn Show

– **Misc – interviews, surprising perspectives, world-building, digging beneath the surface (business, design etc)**

• 99% Invisible
• Akimbo: a podcast from Seth Godin
• The Amiel Show*
• Hidden Brain
• Insivibilia*
• Imaginary Worlds
• The Kitchen Sisters Present
• The Impossible Network
• Lifefulness: Live Life Fully
• Long Now: Seminars About Long-term Thinking*
• The Memory Palace
• Prime Domino*
• Reimagine Work
• The Reboot Podcast
• Thinking allowed

– **Shamanism**

• 3Worlds – The Shamanism Podcast
• Shaman’s Way
• The Shamans Cave
• Why Shamanism Now – A Practical Path to Authenticity

– **Philosophy**

• History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps
• Philosophy Bites
• Very Bad Wizards

– **Language**

• The Allusionist
• Lexicon Valley

– **History**

• BackStory
• Revisionist History
• Stories from the Eastern West

– **Business and economics**

• Seth Godin’s Startup School*
• Masters in Business
• Masters of Scale with Reid Hoffman
• Upstream
• Without Fail
• The Bottom Line
• The World of Business

– **Rationalism and sciencing**

• The Knowledge Project with Shane Parrish
• More or Less: Behind the Stats
• Science Vs
• The Curious Cases of Rutherford & Fry
• You Are Not So Smart

– **Methods (service design, lean, agile, change management etc)**

• Why Service Design Thinking*
• The Days of Change*
• Leading Transformational Change with Tobias Sturesson
• IDEO Futures*
• Targeting Teal: Exploring Enterprise Change using Agile & Lean Principles*

– **Cyber-security and espionage (*almost* fellow traveller topics):**

• Darknet Diaries
• Risky Business
• SpyCast

– **spirituality and that**

• Ram Dass Here And Now
• Alan Watts Podcast*

(left out – comedy, pop culture, and public sector shows)

source

Mary Catherine Bateson: Living with Cybernetics – YouTube

Adler Looks Jorge in the American Cybernetics Society group on LinkedIn

We honor our memory of Mary Catherine Bateson, cultural anthropologist and friend to the ASC. 1938 – 2020

Mary Catherine Bateson: Living with Cybernetics

Mary Catherine Bateson: Living with Cybernetics

16 Dec 2018

As the guest speaker at the ASC dinner meeting at the 2014 Conference in Washington DC, Mary Catherine Bateson, daughter of Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead, shared two stories about her mother orienting her to cybernetics as a young child. One story is about first-cybernetics when talking about analyzing systems, the second about second-cybernetics when focusing on observing one’s observing.

source:

Mary Catherine Bateson: Living with Cybernetics – YouTube

source:

An Invitation to Dinner with the Family of Systems Disciplines – Community.Vitechcorp.com

An Invitation to Dinner with the Family of Systems Disciplines

Systems are truly a family affair. As the concept of systems becomes more significant in the way we think and solve problems, it is increasingly apparent that there are several disciplines, which “specialize” in the study and design of systems. Each discipline views systems from its own perspective, which is related to its purpose and reason for existence. Just as family members gathered for dinner approach the topics of conversation differently given their interests and backgrounds, the systems disciplines consider aspects of systems concepts differently, and use them in different ways. Each of them individually and all of them together have things to offer us in advancing our knowledge and practice of thinking about systems.

Understanding the many facets and perspectives in considering systems will help today’s systems engineers as we wrangle complexity, confront wicked problems, and craft innovative answers to problems that span the socio-technical world. It is worthwhile to consider the variety of systems disciplines and what they have to offer.

continues in source:

An Invitation to Dinner with the Family of Systems Disciplines – Community.Vitechcorp.com

source:

Family Resemblance vs. Polymorphism

Family Resemblance vs. Polymorphism

A comparison: 
Wittgenstein’s Family Resemblance Theory 
vs. Ryle’s Polymorphism and 
Polymorphism in Computer Science/MathematicsAnd perhaps Kant’s notion of “schema”?

(DRAFT: Liable to change)

Aaron Sloman 
School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham. 
(Philosopher in a Computer Science department)

Installed: 30 Apr 2011 
Updated: 11 Jan 2019 (major additions re parametric polymorphism). 
24 Mar 2017; 2018 ….; 14 Jul 2018 
30 Mar 2016; 16 Jul 2016; 12 Sep 2016; 18 Dec 2016 
21 Mar 2016 added “Polymorphism of design requirements” and a few edits.; 
9 Mar 2016 added “creativity” 
19 Apr 2014; 24 Apr 2014; 23 Oct 2015 (Reformatted/minor additions);

This paper is 
HTML: 
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/misc/family-resemblance-vs-polymorphism.html 
PDF: 
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/misc/family-resemblance-vs-polymorphism.pdf

A partial index of discussion notes is in 
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/misc/AREADME.html

This is one of several papers related to the “Computational Qualia” project summarised here by Ron Chrisley: 
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Computational-qualia

full article in source:

Family Resemblance vs. Polymorphism

source:

Vish (game) – Wikipedia

Vish (game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to search

In the game of Vish (short for vicious circle), players compete to find circularity in dictionary definitions.^[1] Irish mathematician and physicist, John Lighton Synge, invented the multi-player, refereed game to emphasize the circular reasoning implicit in the defining process of any standard dictionary.

Procedure

1. Each of the players is given a copy of the same standard dictionary;
2. The referee gives each a slip of paper with the same word (found in this dictionary) written on each slip—word chosen so that it has synonyms in its definition, but (preferably) the definition of any synonym does not (in that dictionary) list a synonym which is the originally assigned word;
3. At “Go!”, each looks up the assigned word, finds a synonym, looks that up, finds a synonym, etc.;
4. The first player to be led, by this synonymous process, back to the originally assigned word cries “Vish!” and wins the game (unless his opponent successfully challenges the procedure of the alleged winner).

source:

Vish (game) – Wikipedia